Heefner’s Missiles and Memories: Dismantling South Dakota’s Cold War demonstrates an intersection of the nation’s military and arms history, local identity and memory. The article analyses South Dakota’s role in America’s cold war nuclear strategy, although it has been heavily overlooked. She begins by providing a compelling examination of how the Great Plains harbored 150 minuteman missiles each having the capacity of 1.2 megatons of nuclear warheads — the fact that is largely unknown and invisible to the broader American public. However, the deactivation of these missile sites under the START I treaty brought a renewed attention to the local level which sparked debates over the land rights, environmental concerns, and historical preservation which led to the establishment of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site. In this article, Heefner explores how different stakeholders: the landowners, national park service personnels, and the military shaped the historical narratives of the technology and human impact, as well as highlights the tensions between them.
The article raises a critical question about how the Cold War is remembered by the locals and how the society remembers conflicts that was never fought on conventional terms (without including weapons). Here, I agree with her assertion that Cold War memory is often reduced to its technological and strategic aspects, while sidelining the lived experiences of those who maintained this nuclear infrastructure. I agree with her argument that the personnels that were responsible for managing these weapons were largely unrecognized despite their pivotal role in maintaining the national security state. The discussion of cold war nostalgia and its resurgence in today’s political sphere is particularly insightful where she seems to draw parallels on how the past conflicts are glorified or even romanticized. However, I think that the article lacks some deeper analysis of the broader implications of the military-industrial society. As we know, in military-industrial societies, we often run into a dilemma between the moral/ ethical considerations surrounding nuclear deterrence. Similarly, I also think that she could have explored the long-term psychological effects on those who lived near these sites and the ethical concerns that were addressed as well as ignored pertaining to nuclear armament.
Overall, the legacy of Minuteman missile program remains relevant in present day geopolitical climate. The implication of this historical memory extends beyond the Great plains. In today’s geopolitical landscape where discussions on nuclear deterrence have resurfaced amid rising political tensions. In this particular context, the lessons from South Dakota’s missile fields act as the reminder of the consequences of prolonged military buildup and challenges of de-escalation. It is also a reminder of how past conflicts continue to shape the current day security policies. The Minuteman Missile National Historic Site is not only a monument but a heritage for the reflection on the intersection of technology, security, ethics and lived experiences of those who found themselves at the core of an invisible war. As this historic site educates new generations, it must strive to present a balanced account that neither glorifies nor diminishes the complexities that surrounded Cold War. It should present a balanced narrative that acknowledges both the strategic achievements and the human costs of the nuclear era.
Will Wright 
Prince, I agree with your statement that Heefner’s article could have included more analysis about the ethics of the Minutemen Missile program and its long-term effects on those that lived and worked alongside the missiles. However, I do think Heefner employs some powerful language in her writing that illustrates the emotions of people living on the land that was eventually used for the Minutemen Missile Silos. For example, she writes about the Great Plains being a “sacrificial ‘sponge’ to ‘soak up’ enemy warheads.” She also discusses how the Cold War displayed “a sacrifice of space and security.” I think both of these statements play into the emotions that local ranchers/landowners felt as they were forced to accommodate for the Minutemen Missile program on the basis of their patriotism. But, as I said, I do agree there could have been more discussion about the long-term effects.
LikeLike